throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 104 PageID #: 26581
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 1 of 104 PageID #: 26581
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 2 of 104 PageID #: 26582
`Trials@uspto.gov
`
`
` Paper No. 11
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
` Entered: July 15, 2020
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 3 of 104 PageID #: 26583
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition, Paper 1 (“Pet.” or
`“Petition”), requesting an inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–5 and 8–
`12 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,084,991 B2 (Ex. 1001,
`“the ’991 patent”). Maxell, Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary
`Response, Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Pursuant to an Order, Paper 7,
`authorizing Petitioner to file a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response and Patent Owner to file a Sur-reply, Petitioner filed a Reply,
`Paper 8 (“Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply, Paper 10 (“Sur-
`reply”).
`An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least
`1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon
`consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, the Sur-
`reply, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a
`reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of
`at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter
`partes review.
`
`B.
`
`Real Party in Interest
`Each party identifies itself as the only real party in interest. Pet. 76;
`Paper 4, 1.
`
`C.
`
`Related Proceedings
`According to the parties, the ’991 patent is the subject of the
`following action: Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5:19-cv-00036-RWS (E.D.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 4 of 104 PageID #: 26584
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`Tex.) filed March 15, 2019 (the “District Court Action”). Pet. 76; Paper 4,
`1.
`
`Petitioner also identifies U.S. Patent Application No. 15/631,298 filed
`June 23, 2017 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,070,099), U.S. Patent Application
`No. 15/215,839 filed July 21, 2016 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,723,268), U.S.
`Patent Application No. 14/811,048 filed July 28, 2015 (now U.S. Patent No.
`9,432,618), U.S. Patent Application No. 13/723,312 filed December 21,
`2012 (now U.S. Patent No. 9,124,758), U.S. Patent Application No.
`12/457,257 filed June 4, 2009 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,363,087), U.S. Patent
`Application No. 16/110,331 filed August 23, 2018 (now U.S. Patent No.
`10,389,978), and U.S. Patent Application No. 16/506,100 filed July 9,
`2019—all of which are in the chain of priority of the ’991 patent. Pet. 76.
`
`The ’991 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`D.
`The ’991 patent describes a videophone system that “selectively sets a
`
`television (TV) broadcast program viewing function mode and videophone
`function mode,” with the videophone function mode “decoding a
`videophone signal received from a distant party to thereby display on the
`screen [of the videophone system] an image of the distant party using the
`screen and speakers” and also “encoding a video signal from a camera [of
`the videophone system] and a voice signal from a microphone [of the
`videophone system] to generate a videophone signal, which is sent to the
`distant party via a network.” Ex. 1001, Abstr. The ’991 patent’s
`videophone system uses a plurality of videophone function-added TV
`receivers linked together via a network, for enabling users to make
`videophone calls between any two of the videophone function-added TV
`receivers. Id. at 2:56–62.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 5 of 104 PageID #: 26585
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
` Figure 1 of the ’991 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a
`videophone function-added TV receiver set. Id. at 6:47–50.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1, above, shows videophone function-added TV receiver 1,
`which has display screen 2, loudspeaker module 3, video camera 4,
`microphone 5, communications network cable 6, and wireless remote control
`device 7. Id. at 7:32–40. Videophone function-added TV receiver 1 is
`controlled by remote control 7 and, by manual operation of the remote
`control, receives digital broadcast programs, downloads video-on-
`demand (VOD) contents and/or makes a videophone call with another
`videophone function-added TV receiver. Id. at 7:62–67.
`Figure 2, reproduced below, illustrates an electrical/electronic circuit
`configuration of the videophone function-added TV receiver shown in
`Figure 1. Id. at 6:51–54.
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 6 of 104 PageID #: 26586
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2, above, shows an example of an electrical/electronic circuit
`configuration of videophone function-added TV receiver 1, which includes
`display panel 8, antenna 9, TV broadcast tuner 10, decoder 11, processor 12,
`hypertext makeup language (HTML) browser 13, inbound call detection
`device 14 for videophone communications, network interface (I/F) 15,
`remote control signal receiver 16, storage unit 17 such as a hard disk drive
`(HDD) or solid-state disk (SSD), and encoder 18. Id. at 8:23–42.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 7 of 104 PageID #: 26587
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`Figure 3 of the ’991 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a video
`telephone system using two videophone function-added TV receivers. Id. at
`6:55–57.
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3, above, shows a video telephone system including
`
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1, another (distant party’s)
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1’ on the other end of a
`communication line (for performing videophone communication with
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1), telephone server 20, and VOD
`server 21, linked together via network 6. Id. at 9:28–49. The ’991 patent
`describes the operation of the video telephone system of Figure 3 as follows:
`[T]he TV remote control 7 . . . has the “TV” button 7b for setting
`the videophone function-added TV receiver 1 in the TV
`broadcast program viewing function mode, the “VOD” button 7c
`for setting the videophone function-added TV receiver 1 in the
`VOD function mode, and the “Phone” button 7d for setting the
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1 in the videophone
`function mode.
` . . .
`When the videophone function-added TV receiver 1 is presently
`set in the TV broadcast program viewing function mode, the
`decoder 11 is set by the processor 12 in the state for execution of
`the TV program-use decode function.
` . . .
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 8 of 104 PageID #: 26588
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`When the “VOD” button 7b (FIG. 4) of the remote control 7 is
`operated, the decoder 11 executes the VOD-use decode function
`under control of the processor 12.
` . . .
`When the “Videophone” button 7c (FIG. 4) of the remote control
`7 is depressed, the decoder 11 is set in a state for execution of the
`videophone-use decode function under setup control of the
`processor 12. Simultaneously, the processor 12 renders the
`camera 4 and microphone 5 plus encoder 18 operative and sets
`up the videophone function mode. Note that the inbound call
`detector 14 is always in the state capable of detecting an
`incoming telephone call from the other-side videophone
`function-added TV receiver 1’ (FIG. 3) even when the
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1 is in the power-off
`state.
`Then, a video signal by means of image pickup of the camera and
`an audio signal indicative of voice sounds as input to the
`microphone 5 are supplied to the encoder 18 and subjected to
`compression processing (encoding) which is pursuant to
`videophone telecommunications so that a videophone signal
`which is obtained thereby is sent from the network I/F 15 via
`network 6 to the other-side videophone function-added TV
`receiver 1’ (FIG. 3). A videophone signal from the other-side
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1’ is received by the
`network I/F 15 and supplied to the decoder 11 so that a video
`signal and audio signal thereof are subjected to expansion
`processing (decoding), causing such decoded signals to be
`supplied to display panel 8 and speakers 3. This enables
`videophone
`telecommunication between
`the videophone
`function-added TV receiver 1 and the other-side videophone
`function-added TV receiver 1’.
`
`Id. at 10:55–65, 12:11–15, 12:34–38, 13:20–46. The ’991 patent further
`describes the operation of the video telephone system after completion of the
`videophone call as follows:
`After completion of the videophone call, when the user depresses
`the “Stop” button 7n of the remote control 7, the processor 12
`renders the decoder 11 and HTML browser 13 inoperative. As
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 9 of 104 PageID #: 26589
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`the decoder 11 goes off, the processor 12 renders the camera 4
`and microphone 5 plus encoder 18 inoperative. . . . Thus, the
`video phone function mode is terminated. . . .
`In the TV program-use decode function mode in which the
`videophone function-added TV receiver 1 receives a digital
`broadcast program, when the “Phone” button 7d of remote
`control 7 is pressed causing it to be switched to this videophone-
`use decode function mode, the processor 12 is responsive to
`completion of a videophone call by manual operation of the
`“Stop” button 7n of remote control 7, for providing control so
`that the decoder 11 changes its operation mode from the
`videophone-use decode function execution mode to the state for
`execution of the TV program-use decode function and then
`returns to the digital broadcast program reception state.
`
`
`Id. at 16:10–31. The ’991 patent explains that its videophone function-
`added TV receiver displays a video image for a videophone call using the
`display screen and loudspeaker that are inherently used for digital TV
`broadcast programs, so that “it is possible for a user to start a phone call and
`finish the call without having to move from a place at which s/he is enjoying
`a digital TV broadcast program.” Id. at 6:25–32. Additionally, “upon
`completion of the phone call, the decoder and encoder are automatically
`rendered inoperative without requiring the user to perform manual
`operations.” Id. at 6:32–37.
`
`E.
`
`Challenged Claims
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–5 and 8–12 of the ’991 patent. Pet. 1.
`Claims 1 and 8 of the challenged claims are independent. Claims 1 and 8
`are substantially similar to each other, where claim 8 is written as a method
`claim and claim 1 is written as an apparatus claim. Claim 1 is illustrative.
`1. [Preamble] A communication apparatus for transmitting and
`receiving digital information to and from another communication
`apparatus, comprising:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 10 of 104 PageID #: 26590
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`[1(a)] a network interface configured to receive first digital
`information which is received from a contents server which
`is coupled to the communication apparatus via the network
`interface and second digital information from the another
`communication apparatus;
`[1(b)] a camera configured to generate video information which is
`included in third digital information;
`[1(c)] a display configured to display at least the first and the
`second digital information; and
`[1(d)] a processor;
`[1(e)] wherein when the processor receives an inbound videophone
`call notice while displaying the first digital information on
`the display, the processor pauses the displaying of the first
`digital information and renders the camera operative;
`[1(f)] wherein the processor outputs the third digital information to
`the another communication apparatus and displays the
`second digital information of the videophone call on the
`display; and
`[1(g)] wherein when the processor receives an input for stopping
`the videophone call, the processor stops output of the third
`digital information and stops the camera.
`
`
`Ex. 1001, 32:39–63, 33:28–51 (numbering designated by Petitioner; see Pet.
`78–80 (“CLAIMS LISTING APPENDIX”)).
`
`F.
`
`Evidence
`Petitioner relies upon the following evidence:
`(1) U.S. Patent No. 7,565,680 B1, issued July 21, 2009 (“Asmussen”)
`(Ex. 1004);
`(2) U.S. Patent No. 7,548,255 B2, issued June 16, 2009 (“Bear”)
`(Ex. 1005);
`(3) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0139514 A1, published June 21,
`2007 (“Marley”) (Ex. 1006);
`(4) U.S. Patent No. 5,940,484, issued Aug. 17, 1999 (“DeFazio”)
`(Ex. 1007);
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 11 of 104 PageID #: 26591
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`(5) U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0031064 A1, published Feb. 12,
`2004 (“Lindstrom”) (Ex. 1008); and
`(6) Declaration of Dr. Andrew Lippman. Ex. 1003.
`
`G.
`
`35 U.S.C. § References
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1, 8
`
`103(a)
`
`Asmussen, Bear
`
`1–5, 8–12
`
`5, 12
`
`1, 8
`
`1–5, 8–12
`
`5, 12
`
`
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`103(a)
`
`Asmussen, Bear, Marley
`
`Asmussen, Bear, Marley, DeFazio
`
`Asmussen, Bear, Lindstrom
`
`Asmussen, Bear, Lindstrom, Marley
`
`Asmussen, Bear, Lindstrom, Marley, DeFazio
`
` ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be denied under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) “because the invalidity arguments [Petitioner] raises here
`will be resolved in the co-pending District Court Action long before this
`proceeding will conclude.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Patent Owner argues, “the
`challenged claims are substantially the same in substance and scope as those
`asserted in the District Court Action.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner asserts, “the
`jury trial adjudicating the validity of the ’991 Patent will conclude nine
`months before any Final Written Decision issues in this proceeding.” Id.
`According to Patent Owner, “instituting an IPR in this circumstance would
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 12 of 104 PageID #: 26592
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`needlessly duplicate the District Court Action, and unnecessarily waste the
`Board’s resources” because all the factors considered in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv,
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential)
`(“Fintiv”), “strongly weigh in favor of denying institution of this Petition.”
`Id. at 5–6.
`Petitioner disagrees. Petitioner argues that “[t]he six factors set forth
`in [Fintiv] strongly favor institution.” Reply 1.
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) states that
`[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted unless the Director1 determines that the information
`presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response
`filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`challenged in the petition.
`
`Under § 314(a), the Director has discretion to deny institution of an inter
`partes review. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140
`(2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to
`the Patent Office’s discretion.”).
`In NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752,
`Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential) (“NHK”), the Board exercised
`its discretion under § 314(a) to deny a petition upon determining that
`institution would be an inefficient use of Board resources. NHK, Paper 8 at
`19–20. In particular, the Board determined that it was proper to exercise
`discretion to deny institution in a case having a parallel district court
`proceeding involving (i) the same patent/parties, (ii) the same claim
`
`
`1 “The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.” 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4(a).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 13 of 104 PageID #: 26593
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`construction, (iii) the same prior art references, (iv) the same arguments as in
`the district court proceeding, which was scheduled to be completed before a
`final decision would have been due in the Board proceeding. See id. at 19–
`20. The Board determined that these circumstances supported denial of the
`petition under § 314(a), considering the America Invents Act’s (“AIA’s”)
`objective “to provide an effective and efficient alternative to district court
`litigation.” Id. at 20 (quoting General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)
`(precedential)).
`In Fintiv, the Board indicated it will assess the following factors
`pertaining to a related parallel district court proceeding, in determining
`whether to exercise its discretion to institute review:
`whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`1.
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`2.
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`3.
`parties;
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`4.
`parallel proceeding;
`whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`5.
`proceeding are the same party; and
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`6.
`discretion, including the merits.
`See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5–6.
`For the reasons discussed in detail below, we do not agree with Patent
`Owner that the circumstances of this case warrant discretionary denial of
`institution under § 314(a).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 14 of 104 PageID #: 26594
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`1. Whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted
`Although Petitioner moved for a stay in the underlying litigation (see
`Reply 6; Ex. 1045), the court recently denied Petitioner’s motion. Sur-reply
`2–3; Ex. 1052. Notably, the court denied the motion without prejudice and
`stated that it could not say, in the event that we instituted this IPR, whether
`“the late stage [of proceedings] would necessarily outweigh the potential
`simplification of issues following institution decisions” in this and other
`inter partes review cases. Ex. 1052, 6 (citing a prior case by the court in
`which a stay was granted three weeks before trial upon the institution of
`IPRs). In other words, the court signaled its willingness to entertain a
`renewed motion for stay from Petitioner if we were to grant institution.
`Notwithstanding, the court stated that, were a renewed motion for stay
`requested, the late stage of proceedings “will certainly weigh against
`granting a stay.” Id. Given the court’s inclination to reconsider a motion for
`stay for the potential simplification of issues, but also considering the court’s
`comment about how the late stage of proceedings would affect its
`consideration of any such renewed motion, we view this factor as neutral.
`2. Proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision
`Trial in the underlying litigation is currently set for October 26, 2020.
`Reply 7; Sur-reply 1; Ex. 1052, 4. Nevertheless, Petitioner contends
`“[l]itigation will continue” after any Final Written Decision here. Reply 7.
`Petitioner notes that it filed a petition for writ of mandamus related to the
`court’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to transfer the underlying litigation. Id.
`Petitioner also notes the COVID-19 pandemic may affect the trial schedule.
`Id.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 15 of 104 PageID #: 26595
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`Patent Owner argues that trial “will be complete eight months before a
`Final Written Decision issues” here and that a delay in the trial date is
`unlikely. Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner cites a standing order in the court of
`the underlying litigation “to keep cases moving” despite the COVID-19
`pandemic. Id. at 4 (quoting Ex. 2017). And, according to Patent Owner,
`even if the trial date were delayed by three months, the trial would still
`precede the Final Written Decision by six months. Id. at 3. The U.S. Court
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for writ of
`mandamus related to the motion to transfer. In re Apple Inc., No. 2020-115,
`2020 WL 2125340 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2020).
`The trial in the underlying litigation is currently set to occur months
`before any Final Written Decision in this case will issue. Although we
`consider delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic to be a real possibility
`despite the court’s standing order, we agree with Patent Owner that even a
`delayed trial might precede a Final Written Decision. This factor favors the
`exercise of discretionary denial.
`3. Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties
`Petitioner contends that, aside from claim construction proceedings,
`“the district court has not invested other substantive efforts and the litigation
`is not ‘advanced.’” Reply 8. Petitioner notes that summary judgment is still
`months away and fact discovery and depositions are ongoing. Id.
`According to Petitioner, the court is not likely to analyze validity until trial.
`Id.
`
`As evidence of the court’s investment in the underlying litigation
`towards the issues of invalidity, Patent Owner highlights the court’s claim
`construction hearing and order and its rulings on Petitioner’s motion to
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 16 of 104 PageID #: 26596
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`dismiss and motion to transfer. Sur-reply 5 (citing Exs. 2005–2008). Patent
`Owner also notes that fact discovery has closed and that expert discovery is
`underway and was expected to close June 25, 2020. Id. at 6 (citing
`Exs. 2018–2019).
`At least some of the work underway or already completed in the
`underlying litigation may have relevance to issues in the Petition, including
`claim construction and expert discovery. Patent Owner’s arguments directed
`to the District Court’s rulings on the motion to dismiss or the motion to
`transfer provide little probative value concerning the court’s investment in
`the invalidity issues raised there. Considering that some of the investment
`by the court and the parties in the underlying litigation may be relevant to
`issues in this case, we find this factor slightly favors the exercise of
`discretionary denial.
`4. Overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding
`Patent Owner asserts “[t]he scope of [Petitioner’s] challenge to the
`’991 Patent’s validity in this proceeding is substantially the same as in the
`District Court Action” because the claims challenged by Petitioner “cover all
`the asserted claims against [Petitioner] in the District Court [A]ction,” and
`“[t]he prior art that [Petitioner] relies upon in its Petition is the same, or
`substantially the same, as the prior art at issue in the District Court Action.”
`Prelim. Resp. 13; see also Sur-reply 6–9. Patent Owner argues, “no
`meaningful distinction exists between [Petitioner’s] references and grounds
`used in the Petition versus those in the District Court Action.” Sur-reply 7.
`Indeed, Patent Owner argues, “the very same issues will be decided by a jury
`at the trial in the District Court Action a mere three months after the Board’s
`Institution Decision.” Prelim. Resp. 14.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 17 of 104 PageID #: 26597
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`Petitioner asserts the Petition presents different grounds than the
`District Court Action and challenges different claims based on different art.
`Reply 9–10. In particular, Petitioner asserts “[Patent Owner] only asserts
`dependent claim 4 (depending from claims 1–3) in the litigation” while
`“[t]he Petition challenges claims 1–5 and 8–12, resulting in 9 claims
`challenged in the Petition and not asserted by [Patent Owner], including
`both independent claims 1 and 8.” Id. at 9.
`As part of the analysis of overlapping issues, it is helpful to consider
`the parties’ recent efforts in the District Court Action to narrow the issues at
`trial. On March 17, 2020, Patent Owner made a Final Election of Asserted
`Claims (Ex. 2010) in which it elected to assert only dependent claim 4 of the
`’991 patent against Petitioner. Id. at 1. On April 7, 2020, Petitioner made a
`Final Election of Prior Art (Ex. 2011) to assert only the combination of
`Asmussen and Allen2 “for the elected claim [4]” of the ’991 patent. Id. at 1,
`4. If no other claims of the ’991 patent are being contested at trial, then only
`the infringement and validity of claim 4 will be decided in the District Court
`Action with respect to the ’991 patent.3
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0041333 A1, published Feb. 27, 2003
`(“Allen”). Despite the parties’ arguments with respect to Allen in this
`proceeding, see, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 15–16; Reply 9, it does not appear that
`either party made Allen an exhibit of record. Therefore, we have entered a
`copy of Allen into the record as Exhibit 3001.
`3 We recognize that claim 4 depends serially from claims 3, 2, and 1, and in
`order to decide the validity of claim 4, the trier of fact in the District Court
`Action would necessarily consider the application of the prior art to the
`limitations of claims 1–3. However, we also recognize that based on the
`parties’ final elections, the validity of claims 1–3 will not be decided in the
`District Court Action because the infringement and validity of those claims
`are not being contested by the parties in that proceeding.
`16
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 18 of 104 PageID #: 26598
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`We agree with Petitioner that there is not complete overlap in the
`claims being asserted in the underlying litigation and in this proceeding.
`Here, Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–5 and 8–12. Pet. 8.
`Patent Owner now only asserts dependent claim 4 in the underlying
`litigation. Ex. 2010, 1. This distinction is material because in this
`proceeding, the patentability of ten claims would be decided (claims 1–5 and
`8–12) at trial, whereas in the District Court Action, only the validity of the
`single asserted claim, dependent claim 4, would ostensibly be decided at
`trial. At most, even when considering that the validity of dependent claim 4
`would necessarily require the trier of fact in the District Court Action to
`consider the application of the prior art to the limitations of claims 1–3, there
`is an overlap of four claims between the two proceedings.
`In addition, dependent claim 5 recites “wherein when the processor
`receives an input for making an outbound videophone call to the another
`communication apparatus, the processor renders the camera and microphone
`operative and displays information indicating the outbound videophone call
`on the display calling message.” Ex. 1001, 33:13–19. Dependent claim 12
`recites a similar limitation. Id. at 34:3–9. These limitations are at issue in
`this proceeding, but not at issue in the District Court Action. Stated
`differently, these limitations, which focus on making an outbound
`videophone call, raise a substantively different issue than the limitations of
`claims 1–4, which primarily focus on receiving an inbound videophone call.
`We do not find compelling Patent Owner’s assertion that “the very
`same issues will be decided by a jury” in the District Court Action. See
`Prelim. Resp. 14; see also Sur-reply 9. To support its position, Patent
`Owner provides a table of “a sample comparison of the evidence cited in the
`Petition allegedly supporting [the] unpatentability of Claim 1” to the
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 19 of 104 PageID #: 26599
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`evidence cited by Petitioner in its preliminary invalidity contentions in the
`District Court Action. See Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing Pet. 17–45;
`Ex. 1003; Ex. 2013, 1–54). However, Patent Owner does not explain how a
`comparison of numerous string citations from Asmussen only against the
`limitations of independent claim 1 results in Patent Owner’s conclusion that
`“the very same issues will be decided by a jury in the District Court Action.”
`See Prelim. Resp. 13–14.
`Nor do we find compelling Patent Owner’s assertion that “[t]he prior
`art that [Petitioner] relies upon in its Petition is the same, or substantially the
`same, as the prior art at issue in the District Court Action.” Prelim. Resp.
`13. In this proceeding, Petitioner is relying on Asmussen, Bear, Marley,
`DeFazio, and Lindstrom, whereas in the District Court Action, Petitioner is
`relying on Asmussen and Allen only.
`Patent Owner argues that “[w]ith respect to Allen, no meaningful
`distinction can be made relative to [Petitioner’s] secondary references used
`in the [P]etition, Bear, Lindstrom, Marley, and DeFazio.” Prelim. Resp. 15;
`Sur-reply 7. Patent Owner argues, for example, that Petitioner is using
`Marley to disclose “the processor restarts the displaying of the first digital
`information,” as recited in claim 2. Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Pet. 50–53).
`Patent Owner argues that “[t]his is the exact same way [Petitioner] is relying
`on Allen in the District Court Action.” Prelim. Resp. 15–16 (citing Pet. 52–
`53; Ex. 2013, 62).
`Petitioner responds by arguing, “[i]t is insufficient to merely argue
`both references teach the same limitation—of course they do. More
`importantly, because these are separate references with different teachings,
`the motivations to combine will be different and distinct, thus presenting
`unique grounds to the Board not addressed in the litigation.” Reply 10.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 485-8 Filed 08/05/20 Page 20 of 104 PageID #: 26600
`IPR2020-00200
`Patent 10,084,991 B2
`For purposes of understanding what issues a finder of fact would face
`with respect to applications of prior art, such as Allen and Marley, it is
`helpful to consider what, precisely, is being disclosed by the prior art.
`Marley, for example concerns:
`[a] system for initiating, receiving, and storing video telephony
`calls via a broadband television network. The system provides
`for the integration of all video telephony functions into the user-
`friendly platform of a residential set-top box which also provides
`standard cable television and digital video recorder functions.
`Ex. 1006, Abstr.
`In particular, with respect to claim 2, Petitioner relies on Marley’s
`disclosure of:
`set top box 100 with integrated video telephone functionality and
`“networked via the cable television infrastructure…to additional
`residential locations.” [Ex. 1006 ¶ 16]. The set top box has
`“processing capabilities, specifically directed to controlling and
`managing video telephone functions.” [Id. ¶ 15]. The set top box
`includes a primary audio/video processor (PAVP) that “pause[s]
`any programming presently being viewed on the monitor” when
`an incoming video telephone call is accepted by a user. [Id. ¶ 22].
`The PAVP stores the paused programming in “DVR memory
`116 for viewing after the termination of the video call.” [Id.].
`After termination of the video telephone call, the PAVP
`“restore[s] normal television viewing, thereby allowing the
`calling and called parties to resume real time program viewing,
`or recall the paused programming from DVR memory (116, 316)
`for viewing (519).”
`Pet. 51 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 22; citing

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket